Israel Rejects Cease-Fire; Its Rationale Buried

"Israel Rejects Gaza Cease-Fire, But Offers Aid"
A1, Thursday 1/01/09
By Ethan Bronner

It takes Ethan Bronner 13 paragraphs to get to why Israel rejects a recent cease-fire proposal.

"Israeli officials say their goals for a truce include a complete cessation of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza, a ban on armed men approaching the border, full Israeli control over border crossings and a mechanism to ensure Hamas is meeting its commitments."

Considering Israel's rejection is the article's title and ostensible centerpiece, it's hard to figure why we're not told, for example, which of these Israeli requirements wasn't included in the proposed cease-fire, not to mention who proposed it.

At the very least, "it was not clear…" seems an appropriate tool for the lack of such important information. A relevant example is the launching of two rockets, "at one point," from within the Jabalya Refugee Camp into Israel. "An Israeli missile then hit the launcher." Here, "it was not clear whether civilians were killed as a result" would’ve been a good follow-up, a reminder of how civilians have been killed – Hamas' purposeful mixing of military targets and civilians.

Pointed out are the buildings Israel has destroyed – places Israeli "officials asserted" where "rocket launchers and ammunition were made, stored and even operated from there". The following is another important point, but one that warranted elaboration:

"[An Israeli official] said that one limitation on the aid was that crossing points had come under attack by Hamas."

For what reason besides a devious PR strategy against Israel would Hamas want to limit aid into its territory? Hamas may be sacrificing its own people on the altar of turning world opinion further against Israel, but nothing further is made of this by Bronner.

Nearly a week after Israel's campaign, readers are finally given details of Israel's efforts to prevent civilian casualties, specifically "tens of thousands of Gazans" receiving recorded phone calls "warning them that their houses have been marked as targets because they harbored either militants or weapons facilities like rocket workshops. Noncombatants were urged to clear out. Hundreds of thousands of leaflets gave the same message."

The issue of civilians – Israel's concern with, and Hamas' exploitation of – is treated somewhat fairly here. This was sorely needed in the front-page article just below this one, "In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer." (see above)

The big void in this article, aside from the burying of Israel's reasons for its rebuffing the ceasefire, is a short analysis of why just any simplistic ceasefire has been, and continues to be, disastrous for stability in the long-run.